Climate of hatred: Prominent scientist refused service due to skepticism

June 16, 2009

Prominent MIT physicist and global warming skeptic, Richard Lindzen, was recently refused the services of a Boston-area art appraiser because of global warming.

As Lindzen described in an e-mail:

In our recent house fire, an 18th century oriental rug was burnt, and we needed an appraisal of its value for our insurance. We were referred to a dealer, [name withheld], who agreed to do the appraisal. However, when my wife, Nadine, brought him the burnt rug, he rudely turned her away saying that he had sent me an email explaining his position…

Here’s the text of the art appraiser’s e-mail to Lindzen:

I am sorry to inform you that after some consideration, I’ve decided not to perform the appraisal service that you’ve requested. Your writing on the subject of global warming is offensive to me personally, and I feel that I would have difficulty being an impartial appraiser of value given my view on the subject.

Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Service’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS.

Comforting that this physicist is prominent. Who are these promoters of the prominent? I am not sure I can trust the promoters of the prominent, so can I trust the prominent from such hearsay? I suspect no. Prominences are flares that come and go, no? Urban VIII was, I suppose, more prominent than Galileo, since he and the Index had the Duty to protect the many from False Doctrines. It took some 400 years to have his books removed from the Index. Curious.

First and foremost the concept that humanity cannot have any “huge” effect on the world’s climate is grossly incorrect. Humanity can influence the world’s climate in a number of ways i.e. Nuclear War would change worldwide climate. Humanity clearly does possess the power to control and change the world drastically. This of course neither proves or disproves the existence of Global Warming but does disprove the concept put forth that humanity cannot affect the world in such a “huge” way. As for the art appraiser I would have to agree that this is getting more press and discussion than it deserves. Prof. Lindzen should find another art appraiser and chalk this up to a fluke.

I’ll grant you the nuclear effect on the environment. However, the effect would only be temporary and wouldn’t do anything to destroy the planet. After time, the earth would resume it’s normal environmental norms and continue possibly without man. In any case, regular activity by man and industry do not have a significant influence on climate change. We could reduce business related CO2 emissions to zero and it’s not going to change the pattern of the earth’s temperature cycles. If the earth was headed for an ice age, it would still be heading for an ice age if you were to remove man altogether. Same for the opposite also applies, too.

Hi Kong, The main argument here is if man can affect climate and through an extreme example we have established that he could. In this particular example you have even conceded that the extinction of man may result. Once we have established that man can change climate, even if it is for a short time, we have to being to consider what other affects our actions have on the climate. I would assume that uncontrolled deforestation would have an affect on climate. Bottomline is that to ignore the effect that humanity has on the planet is to be as blind as those whom over-exaggerate our affect.

sukiho; If he’s a showman how come he hasn’t started a very public lawsuit against this ass of a dubious art appraiser?
These people put themselves out there as experts on art and the fact that he contracts as an appraiser implys he is objective. Like a Judge he’s bound by his proffession to be impartial.
The scientist has to deal with fact about how we as human beings have screwed up the planets regulator. And when he report the factual findings of the research people like you call him a showman of a fraud because your afraid to face the hard cold facts that hit you in the face when you really look around you! F*** O*F!

a judge is obliged to state if he has an interest in a case, I didnt call him a showman because of what you call his factual findings, I called him a showman because this has nothing to do with science, or anything, and neither does your reporting it, I doubt he has a case for a lawsuit altho Im not familiar with US law, actually you are quite pathetic with you f– offs and personal attacks, at least Lindzen isnt a moron like you

What an idiot you are scientist publish thier findings constantly! How else are they to inform the ignorant masses or in your case asses(as you seemingly refuse to use you brain for logical consideration of the facts)!

not at all, your post was not about his findings, he should publish them by all means, but a press release about someone refusing to appraise a rug, which is what your post is about, is pure showmanship

YOUR COMMENT:
“What’s the plan for those that oppose any green initiatives? Just continue on and hope that warming truly is cyclical, and we’ll cool down again?”

No. I’ll continue on without hope, because I don’t need it. We ARE cooling down, which is why the leftists change the name from “global warming” to “climate change”. Global warming is now responsible for every variation in the weather no matter which direction it goes. I am not worried about “climate change”, because man’s contributions to it is meaningless. Mother nature is MUCH more controlling of it than man, and any stupid laws you leftists make will make not an iota of change in what the environment will be in the future. The laws will hurt us, and they won’t help the earth.

YOUR COMMENT:
“I think to ignore that we’re making a negative impact is irresponsible.”

You’re right, but it’s not “we”. The negative impact is coming from the idiots pushing the global warming scam. Because of the uncertainty of what the future holds in Obama’s crushing iron fist of policies, the economy will not recover. It needs confidence, not fear.

When the actual green laws get passed, our ecomony is going to tank. China is business friendly and they will be more than happy to welcome more American businesses moving to their soil…along with the jobs. China is exempt from any CO2 standards, so there will be no reduction in CO2 emissions. Any reduction in CO2 here will be cancelled by the increase in CO2 in China because of the massive industrial boost they will get from the stupid laws put in place here. There will actually be a net INCREASE, because Chinese businesses emits a lot more pollution and CO2 than American plants do. Unless, of course, your end game is just to get it out of our back yard and put it in someone elses….because that’s what’s going to happen. Businesses will relocate before they spend billions to meet Obama’s demands, and if think different then you have your head buried in the sand.

To give an example…my company had plants in California. When California started becoming “green” the tax laws became terrorist-like on businesses. My company closed it’s doors in California and moved part of it to Mexico and the rest of it to Kansas. When the “green” laws pass in every state, there will be nowhere else to go in the country. Mexico and China will become business heaven. For some reason you lefties believe that businesses will sit back and just let you rape them for everything they’ve got. It won’t happen…. many of them will be gone.

Lindzen caught a break here. Any “professional” who admits that his personal biases prevent him from objectively doing his job is scary. Wonder how many, swedes or blacks or Yankees fans, et al, have received bum appraisels. Of course if you’re the goreacle, you send this nit all your appraisels and just wait for your insurance check. You really should publish this bums name.

It would appear that some of you think there are two legitimate sides to this issue.

I suggest you check your premise. Either ACGW is a provable, demonstrable, fact or it is not. Moreover, even if humans could be shown to significantly contribute to climate change why would this be necessarily bad to the point of further shackling what little remains of the free market?

The geologic history of the earth is rather clear and portends another ice age in roughly 5,000 years so what’s the point? If any of you think humans have the ability to control the climate to their liking, I suggest you go and do a couple more bong hits.

The evidence clearly suggests it is simply not the case that humans have this ability, ergo we cannot have contributed in significant ways to alter the global climate so as to deviate from changes that would and are already taking place anyway.

In order to perpetrate the ACGW charade, its proponents take any form of climate change and twist the facts using juiced up computer models designed to support the charge that it is human activity (essentially human life) that is the principal cause to the effect.

But what is now being suggested, the muddled middle road, is truly inane.. Such implies ordering the thinker and the idiot to agree that the moon is neither composed of a combination of elemental substances, nor is it composed of cheese. Rather, we need to come to a compromise suggesting that because we are not on the moon a thought experiment using computer modeling could imply cheese AND elemental substances if properly tweaked.. So, until such time that we are regularly on the moon and can experience it first hand, we must force both sides to give up something. The moon must be considered part cheese and part elemental substances and all of our lives should be altered to support the research implied by a moon that is part cheese and part elemental substances.

The cheese proponent who is incorrect gets to keep a nugget suggesting in some way he deserve respect for being truthful merely by exercising a choice, as if you are at an ice cream stand where the choice of chocolate over vanilla is equally legitimate. In reality, this is merely sustaining the nitwit who eliminates the truth so that he can live a fantasy; a fantastic realm where no choice or values need exist – willing to toss reality aside under the guise of handing out justice by equating reality and fantasy.

Compromise and consensus, in and of themselves, carry no virtue or value. What is right and provable, regardless of how inconvenient it might be, is what matters. Global warming due to human activity is a myth almost as dangerous as dead men walking, virgins giving birth, and rocks spurting wine at ones command…

Here’s a novel idea, instead of refusing Professor Lindzen service, the art appraiser could have taken the professor’s business and used the opportunity to engage Lindzen in debate and debunk his offensive writings on global warming. Oh yea, that’s right, the science is settled.

I think in any situation there is always time for reflection, so that we don’t shoot the messenger. Now those of you who are familiar with my posts know that on occassion I have machine-gunned the messengers of the Global Warming hoax, but in this case I will exercise temperence and point out a few facts for consideration.

This is an ART APPRAISER in BOSTON. John Kerry’s Boston. Ted Kennedy’s Boston. Are we so sure that this art appraiser really is so offended by Lindzen personally? Or is he pre-emptively conveying the reaction of his many other, likely elitist, GW-snowballed customers. He may have extrapolated, just as I immediately did, that appraising art for Richard Lindzen may come at the cost of losing a significant portion of his regular customer base. This guy may actually have no position on the topic, but knowing his customers, may be posturing in a manner that preserves his livelihood best as possible. Despite the anger that we all share about this ridiculous hoax that has been thrust upon us, we must avoid the tactics of our enemies. Richard Lindzen vs the Boston Elite, is pretty much ground zero for this debate. Shooting the messenger or assassinating the character of someone unwittingly caught in the middle of this battle, goes against our collective calls for integrity and truth.

How many of you would be willing to give up your livelihoods just to make a stand on an issue you didn’t care about? Especially when the alternative was to become a hero and improving your livelihood for sending an e-mail claiming to support a topic you don’t care about? You’re bigger and dumber than me if you would take this stand

This art dealer is ultimately insignificant in this debate. If you have a position on Global Warming for the RIGHT REASONS (truth, scientific integrity, freedom) then such an inconsequential figure needn’t even be on your radar. Keep your anger directed at those who deserve it most…

I don’t know that anyone’s mad at this appraiser, because he’s just an appraiser of no significance in the global warming debate.

However, I’m not sure I buy the “covering his own ass” scenerio. I don’t know of any business that gets shunned by the left just for doing their job even if called upon by “righties”. Doing a job is NOT taking a stand against the leftist elite, but if the appraiser gave an opposing opinion he certainly would be taking that dangerous step.

Additionally, the appraiser said directly that the views of Lindzen offended HIM personally. No, he wouldn’t have come out and said that he was afraid to do the job because of retaliation, but he surely would have come up with a more legitimate reason for bailing out.

I wonder what the reaction would be if some appraiser said to Martin Luther King, Jr. that “I find I cannot stomach your positions on racial equality, therefore I cannot in good conscience serve you as a customer?”

I find it amazing that we as a species can multiply like no other, with no real natural preditor…and think we have no effect on the planet.

What’s the plan for those that oppose any green initiatives? Just continue on and hope that warming truly is cyclical, and we’ll cool down again?

Sure, some of the things we’re doing are marketing gimmicks, nothing’s perfect. But I think to ignore that we’re making a negative impact is irresponsible.

If both sides of the issue would just loosen the grip they have and try to admit that the other side has some real points, maybe we could all find a place to meet in the middle and get something done.

However as it goes, it seems that all we do is find reasons to polarize each other…kinda a shame…

Oh, and I suppose the guy is within his American rights to refuse work… I suppose he could have been more gracious about it…but he’s got his rights… it’s not like he’s the only asshole in the World right? Both sides have them…

Except, as sbartsch says, if he refused to appraise something for a black man, a Jewish woman, a gay/lesbian couple, would your “he’s got rights” argument still hold up? Because I find that when someone is refused service because they hold politically incorrect views, it’s a “right” to do so. When someone objects to a politically correct group, they’re bigots who can’t discriminate. Like a NM photog who was sued for not shooting a lesbian “wedding”, or pharmacists/doctors who won’t prescribe contraception or perform abortions.

As for global warming, no, I don’t buy it. Most people don’t go around dumping toxic waste out of the trunks of their cars. We were told the planet had a fever for years (since I was in elementary school, really, and I’m almost 27), but the past 5-10 years have seen COOLING.

We also have such a small amount of data (150-200 years) tracking weather cycles and patterns when compared to the Earth’s much-longer (read: billions of years) lifespan that extrapolating any real, sound conclusions from that data is specious at best. Hell, most weatherman can’t get tomorrow’s forecast right even with high-tech equipment and Al Gore doesn’t have a degree in meteorology so far as I know…but we’re supposed to believe HIM when it comes to global warming?

Also, about “loosening the grip” – I see nothing from the AGW side of the argument that is actually effective, and not ultimately about controlling what we eat, where we live, how we heat/cool our homes, and pretty much every aspect of our lives in the name of “protecting the environment.” In California, the government wanted remote access to and control over the thermostats in private residences. More radical groups want eco-sterilization or population control limits (never mind birthrates have, in most parts of the world, been in steady decline for many years). So who, exactly, would we be saving the planet FOR, anyway?

Our government outlawed incandescent bulbs for a kind 1) primarily made in China, 2) loaded with mercury, and 3) not visually appealing. Obama’s emission standards will make any vehicle a 2-person max SMART car at best (tough luck for those of us with kids, they’ll just have to stay home all the time, or who don’t want to die in a lawnmower with seat belts). And we’re just supposed to turn over control of our lives to them? For something that may or may not be real?

I prefer to believe that Mother Nature and God designed the world in such a way that our existence is not powerful enough to destroy the planet.

response to: I prefer to believe that Mother Nature and God designed the world in such a way that our existence is not powerful enough to destroy the planet.

Well, then, case in point. It’s much more preferable to believe in fairtytales than to take responsibility for writing and distributing them. I was respecting the view until that statement. How impressive it is on the outside to watch the arrogance of man.

@Tatiana… you accuse amylpav22 of being arrogant. He is saying that man is too insignificant to change nature in such a huge way. You, on the other hand, are dismissing his statement just because he believes in God. I’m agnostic, but I don’t grade someone’s intelligence on their belief or disbelief in God. I take that you are full tilt towards man causing global warming. You believe that man is so powerful that we can alter the much, much larger forces of nature. It’s you that’s being arrogant.

Tzugidan, The answer to your 3 questions:
no action required,
yes,
Right and the vast majority are politically correct assholes.

Do your homework and stop listening Matt lauer et.al. In your lifetime their is a much greater probability that the globe will cool to an untenable degree base upon scientific ice core samples. If in fact CO2 warms the planet, which is unproven, we need to crank up the output not reduce it.

Believing in God is no more believing in a “fairy tale” than thinking Al Gore is the end all be all of weather knowledge. At least my belief in God is voluntary, as are the things I do in my personal life to save/reduce my energy consumption in a way I deem appropriate, comfortable, and fitting to my lifestyle. I could stop believing tomorrow and not suffer any penalty for it.

Folks like Gore do not want us to voluntarily submit to their ideas; they would be mandatory, and failure to comply would have many consequences.

tzudidan, Al Gore et al. do not wannt to “get something done”. All they want is the issue. That way they can use it as a cudgel to control more and more of our lives. If they were serious about resolving the issue (if one indeed does exist), nuclear power would be their solution. But Al doesn’t want a solution, it would eat in to his power and profit margins.

Gore’s net worth after leaving political office was $2 million. Now it’s about $100 million, thanks to his fantasy film and carbon credits company. Nah, Gore’s allegiance isn’t with his pocketbook, it’s with the truth and saving the world. Not hardly. He has all of his money tied up in the “green” lie, so he’s going to force it up everyone’s ass.

Haven’t you noticed that we have environmental laws because we acknowledge that we have an impact on the environment? These didn’t always exist. So progress has already been made. What’s best though is if our environmental laws are based on sound scientific discoveries about what our impact is, so that we can make educated value judgments about whether we need to limit certain damaging activities if we find that what we’re doing is making habitat unsustainable, or if we’re risking our own lives.

What the “skeptics” have shown by the method in science of criticism via. evidence is that yes, we have an impact on our environment, but at present it’s limited. We don’t have the power to destroy our world by using fossil fuels, thank goodness! Now, there are ways that fossil fuel excavation damages habitats, and what we should demand as a society is that as we continue to draw up those resources for our use, that the producers take on the responsibility of minimizing the harm to habitats as they do so. From what I understand technology has advanced so that this is possible.

[…] Read it. I am sorry to inform you that after some consideration, I’ve decided not to perform the appraisal service that you’ve requested. Your writing on the subject of global warming is offensive to me personally, and I feel that I would have difficulty being an impartial appraiser of value given my view on the subject. […]

[…] Boston art appraiser declines to appraise oriental rug for notorious MIT warmo-denialist Richard Lindzen: I am sorry to inform you that after some consideration, I’ve decided not to perform the […]

The appraiser can sell his services to anyone he wants. I can choose not to use his services. Tell us who he is so that we can avoid him.
His ignorance is protected, but so is our right to call him out on it.

The appraiser can sell his services to anyone he wants. I can choose not to use his services. Tell u who he is so that we can avoid him.
His ignorance is protected, but so is our right to call him out on it.

I certainly don’t agree with the art appraiser’s position, but I do support his right to refuse service to some one he doesn’t agree with. By the same token, I support anyone’s right to refuse to patronize his gallery or business. That sword cuts both ways.

Following your conscience has no moral value if it is not based on a moral principle. What moral principle was observed by the appraiser? Apparently the good doctor has in some way vandalized the house of cards that supports the concept of Global Warming. What would keep a person so thoroughly convinced of Global Warming from next demanding that the doctor be sent to a re-education camp? This small example measures the psychological investment in Global Warming and also the willingness to take action in the form of real financial investment in a possible hoax.

I think the Egyptians over invested in pyramids as a means of salvation of the soul but who knows what else they could have accomplished if they had not spent so much on masonry? Science is at risk in this environment and as Carl Sagan might say, ” The candle in the dark seems to be burning out.”

I’m in favour of an individual’s right to transact with whomever her wants and to discriminate using any criterion be it race, religion, appearance, habits, personal views or simply personal dislike.

As I see it the danger is when authorities with power enforce discrimination. It was fine for a German Christian to voluntarily refuse services to a Jew. It was not fine when there was a bureaucratic decree that forbade services from and to Jews.

I believe statutory or other official intervention in transacting with sceptics is a distinct possibility and is imminent especially with leaders with views such as Obama and Cameron (soon to become the British PM).

I do think the name of the appraiser should be disclosed. There are always cost and other consequences of behaviour such as his one of which is a boycott by men on logic. That’s how the market should operate.

If Al Gore showed up at my place of business, I’d reserve the same right to refuse him service. This is a legitimate form of social protest. But in all fairness, the appraiser’s identity should be made public so that he can take the same discrimination he dishes out.

Good for Professor Lindzen for sticking up for his scientific view of on climate matters and good for the art appraiser for following his moral conscious and refusing service to someone whose views he finds offensive.

Truth be told, the art appraiser has the right to refuse service and I applaud him for exercising his right. I too would exercise that right never to use this art appraiser for the very same reason.

Perhaps more of us should exercise the same right against these crazy companies and individuals cramming green pollutants down our throats everywhere we turn.

In fact, I support double-bagging – just to offset the green nonsense of the person in front of me getting feel-good pleasure from using his inconvenient reduce/reuse/recycle bag.

Benjamin, I 100% agree with you right up until the end. While you may consider utilizing reduce/reuse/recycle bags as nonsense in the Global Warming argument arena in the very least it most certainly is admirable to attempt to preserve the world’s forests. Or do you not support protecting our natural resources and believe that we should just have it?

I would say Prof. Lindzen can surely find another and probably better art appraiser. I cannot say here what I would like to tell this Useful Idiot “Art Appraiser” (he probably would not know a van Gogh from a 3 year old just fooling around). My advise to Prof. Lindzen: There are plenty of great art appraisers in cities all over the Nation other than boston. Bottom line, as a “art appraiser”, who needs this elitist asshole?